Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Literal flesh and blood?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Endtime Survivors" data-source="post: 70627812" data-attributes="member: 386101"><p>I dunno. When I see a catholic service, there appears to be A LOT of stage management happening. From the clothing, to the furniture and relics, to the words, to the response from the congregation, to the timing...all of it is carefully planned out in step by step observances and it's always the same program.</p><p></p><p>You see the artifice in the Baptist world, but not in the Catholic world? To me, that is an inconsistency which indicates something <em>more</em> happening below the surface. This artifice thing seems to be some kind of paste smeared over the top. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think this is where "every wind of doctrine" Paul warned about comes in handy. Change is good. That's what all learning is; change. If God really is infinitely everything good, then there must be so much that he wants to teach us. I think it'd be safe to say that several lifetimes would not be enough to learn everything God wants us to learn, which means that there is not only plenty of incentive, but plenty of <em>obligation</em> to learn and grow. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"Doctrine" is a convenient concept for organizing beliefs. In that sense, I think God is concerned about what we believe and how we behave. There really is a right and wrong for everything, but it is our lack of understanding for how to appreciate those right and wrongs which causes the problems. </p><p></p><p>This is why flexibility is so important. Our understanding <em>should </em>be changing from day to day as we learn and grow. What may have seemed the right path today may not necessarily be the right path tomorrow.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The question isn't at all about historical perceptions regarding eating together, but rather what was Jesus' understanding of how his followers should behave. He and his followers lived, worked, traveled, and shared together full time as a community of believers. Their unity was a sample of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. When Jesus said, "This is my body" he wasn't talking about bread; he was talking about the unity of believers being and sharing together, which is why he then passed the bread around, making a show of sharing it together. </p><p></p><p>It doesn't make sense to conclude that rather than encourage the practical, day to day unity he'd already cultivated with his followers, that he instead introduced a completely new concept where his followers would go live separately in their own homes, coming together once (or maybe twice?) a week to perform a ritual of "being together" capped with a miracle transfiguration each and every time. </p><p></p><p>Why would Jesus exchange the real-deal community he'd worked so hard to build for three years, for a fraction of that unity performed weekly via a special food-eating ritual? It just makes no sense. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Can't help? If the context were different, I'd shrug this off as an idiomatic expression, but in the context of concepts like "tradition" and "church father authority" it really does come across as, "I have no choice but to accept that these people are the ones to decide what my relationship with God should be like". If that's what's happening then that is definitely not consistent with what Jesus taught.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Endtime Survivors, post: 70627812, member: 386101"] I dunno. When I see a catholic service, there appears to be A LOT of stage management happening. From the clothing, to the furniture and relics, to the words, to the response from the congregation, to the timing...all of it is carefully planned out in step by step observances and it's always the same program. You see the artifice in the Baptist world, but not in the Catholic world? To me, that is an inconsistency which indicates something [I]more[/I] happening below the surface. This artifice thing seems to be some kind of paste smeared over the top. I think this is where "every wind of doctrine" Paul warned about comes in handy. Change is good. That's what all learning is; change. If God really is infinitely everything good, then there must be so much that he wants to teach us. I think it'd be safe to say that several lifetimes would not be enough to learn everything God wants us to learn, which means that there is not only plenty of incentive, but plenty of [I]obligation[/I] to learn and grow. "Doctrine" is a convenient concept for organizing beliefs. In that sense, I think God is concerned about what we believe and how we behave. There really is a right and wrong for everything, but it is our lack of understanding for how to appreciate those right and wrongs which causes the problems. This is why flexibility is so important. Our understanding [I]should [/I]be changing from day to day as we learn and grow. What may have seemed the right path today may not necessarily be the right path tomorrow. The question isn't at all about historical perceptions regarding eating together, but rather what was Jesus' understanding of how his followers should behave. He and his followers lived, worked, traveled, and shared together full time as a community of believers. Their unity was a sample of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. When Jesus said, "This is my body" he wasn't talking about bread; he was talking about the unity of believers being and sharing together, which is why he then passed the bread around, making a show of sharing it together. It doesn't make sense to conclude that rather than encourage the practical, day to day unity he'd already cultivated with his followers, that he instead introduced a completely new concept where his followers would go live separately in their own homes, coming together once (or maybe twice?) a week to perform a ritual of "being together" capped with a miracle transfiguration each and every time. Why would Jesus exchange the real-deal community he'd worked so hard to build for three years, for a fraction of that unity performed weekly via a special food-eating ritual? It just makes no sense. Can't help? If the context were different, I'd shrug this off as an idiomatic expression, but in the context of concepts like "tradition" and "church father authority" it really does come across as, "I have no choice but to accept that these people are the ones to decide what my relationship with God should be like". If that's what's happening then that is definitely not consistent with what Jesus taught. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Literal flesh and blood?
Top
Bottom